On June 29, the Supreme Court overturned Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the 1935 decision that for ninety-one years had prohibited presidents from firing the heads of independent federal agencies without cause. The ruling in Trump v. Slaughter was 6-3. Chief Justice Roberts held that any officer who exercises executive power must remain subject to presidential removal. The constitutional architecture that created the independent regulatory agency fell in a single opinion. The FTC, the SEC, the CFPB, the NLRB, the NRC, the FCC. All of them.
Then, in a companion ruling issued the same morning, the court carved out exactly one exception. In Trump v. Cook, the justices voted 5-4 to block President Trump's attempted firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. It was the first attempted removal of a Fed governor in the central bank's 111-year history. Roberts wrote that the court would not "sow doubt as to the status of one of the Nation's most important financial institutions," calling the Fed a "special arrangement sanctioned by history."
The distinction has no basis in constitutional text. Roberts grounded it in tradition, comparing the Federal Reserve to the First and Second Banks of the United States and arguing that the founding generation established a practice of insulating monetary policy from political control. Justice Kagan, dissenting in Slaughter, noted that the Fed's independence "rests on the same constitutional and analytic foundations" as every other independent agency the court had just dismantled. She voted to protect the Fed anyway.
Kavanaugh was the pivot. He joined the 6-3 majority in Slaughter to overturn Humphrey's Executor. Then he crossed to join Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson in Cook to save the Fed. The same justice who agreed the president should control the FTC, the SEC, and the CFPB concluded the president should not control the Federal Reserve. The line between them is one man's judgment about which independence matters.
Markets confirmed that judgment. On June 29, the S&P 500 rose 1.18% and the Nasdaq surged 2.07%. Ninety-one years of regulatory independence were dismantled and equities went up. The reaction makes sense only if markets never valued regulatory independence in the first place. Only monetary independence. The SEC falling under presidential control doesn't change discount rates. The CFPB answering to the White House doesn't move the yield curve. The Fed is the only regulator whose independence is priced into every asset on earth.
Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett dissented in Cook. They wanted the president to control the Fed too. Four justices believe the Constitution requires that the person who sets tariffs, signs spending bills, and campaigns for reelection should also choose whether to keep or fire the people who set interest rates. They lost by one vote.
Cook was not a final ruling. The court blocked Trump's firing while the case proceeds. The full question of whether the president can remove Fed governors remains open. Roberts' extensive reasoning signals how the court would ultimately decide, but the Fed's independence currently rests on a temporary order supported by five justices.
The distance between presidential control over monetary policy and the current arrangement is one retirement. One appointment. One confirmation. Roberts is 71. If the composition shifts by a single seat, the next challenge goes 5-4 the other way. Humphrey's Executor lasted 91 years. The Fed exception is three days old.